R East Meon Forge and Cricket Ground Protection Association (acting by its Chairman George Bartlett) v East Hampshire District Council and Another J. Croucher and Another (Interested Parties)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Lang |
| Judgment Date | 31 October 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 3543 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/1894/2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 31 October 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 3543 (Admin)
The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE
Case No: CO/1894/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
PLANNING COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Robert Fookes (instructed by Prospect Law Ltd) for the Claimant
David Forsdick QC (instructed by East Hampshire District
Council Legal Services Department) for the First Defendant
The Second Defendant did not appear and was not represented
The First Interested Party did not appear and was not represented
The Second Interested Party appeared in person
Hearing dates: 23 rd & 24 th October 2014
Introduction
The Claimant applies for judicial review of the Defendants' decision, dated 7 th April 2014, to grant planning permission to make alterations and additions to the property known as The Forge, High Street, East Meon, Petersfield, Hampshire GU32 1QD, by constructing a first floor residential flat, with a deck to the rear.
The East Meon Forge and Cricket Ground Protection Association is an unincorporated association, formed in September 2013, with the aim of protecting both The Forge and the use of the adjoining recreation ground for the playing of cricket. It now has about 150 members, who are local residents.
The planning authority is the South Downs National Park Authority, but the application for planning permission was determined by East Hampshire District Council (hereinafter "the Council") under an agency agreement.
The Interested Parties are the owners of The Forge who successfully applied for planning permission, at the third attempt. They had previously withdrawn their first application in March 2013. Their second application was granted by the Council, but quashed by consent on 22 nd April 2014 in the Claimant's first claim for judicial review.
Collins J. granted the Claimant permission to apply for judicial review in this claim on 5 th June 2014.
At the hearing, the Claimant re-formulated its grounds to some extent, and did not pursue its original grounds 5, 8, 9 and 10. It did not pursue an application to add a further ground.
On 23 rd June 2014, Mitting J. granted the Claimant an injunction restraining the Interested Parties from carrying out development before the judicial review claim had been determined. There was evidence that the floor had been excavated by a digger and that a chimney had been smashed.
The Interested Parties subsequently applied to vary this order to allow "vital repairs" to be carried out, following service of a letter from the Council's Building Control Surveyor, headed 'Building Act 1984 Section 77/78 Dangerous Structure', stating that signs of movement of an exterior wall meant that the structure was in imminent danger of collapse. The application was opposed by the Claimant because of the irreparable damage it would do to the building. The application was adjourned by Sales J. because he was not satisfied that the proposed works, which included removal of the roof and partial demolition of the walls, were urgently required. Sales J. ordered that the Claimant and the Interested Parties obtain independent surveyors' reports. When the surveyors inspected the property it was agreed that (1) the bowing of the exterior wall was not recent; (2) any further movement could be prevented by timber ties to the underside of the roof; and (3) there was no imminent danger of collapse. The Interested Parties did not renew their application. The costs were reserved. I am satisfied that the Interested Parties ought to pay the Claimant's costs in respect of that application.
On 23 rd June 2014, Mitting J. also imposed a stay on the Council restraining it from determining matters reserved for further approval under conditions.
The Forge
The Forge was the site of the village blacksmith, and it is an important part of the local heritage. It was in use as a wrought iron workshop until about 2010. Since then it has been empty. It is a single storey vernacular industrial building of simple design. It is small (about 71.13 sq. metres or 765 sq. feet, according to the Valuation Office) and low in height (only 5.4 metres or 17.7. feet) to the ridge line of its pitched roof. The building is L-shaped, following the line of the two roads which it abuts: the High Street and Frogmore/ Mill Lane. The current building dates from the 19 th century, though it is believed that the site has been used as a smithy for much longer than that. It is constructed of brick, with a tile gabled roof. There is a small modern lean-to extension which houses an office and WC. The building is in a poor state of repair.
It is on a small plot, comprising an area of hard standing, some rough grass and a large sycamore tree at the boundary with the recreation ground.
The proposed development will retain the ground floor for an industrial use (carpentry), and build a new residential flat above it, to be occupied as a live/work unit. The flat will comprise a bedroom, bathroom, open plan living room and kitchen, utility room, store and separate WC. The evidence of dimensions is incomplete and contradictory, but Mr Mitchell, chartered surveyor for the Claimant, estimated the proposed development would provide approximately 1,700 sq ft over 2 floors. This would more than double its size, adding an additional 935 sq ft.
Access to the first floor unit will be via external steps, leading on to a wooden deck, some 10 feet deep. looking towards the recreation ground. The solid front door will lead from the deck into the living room. The living room will have floor to ceiling sliding patio doors on to the deck. The deck will continue around the side of the first floor, creating a veranda, in front of two large floor to ceiling windows, also looking towards the recreation ground. Windows from other rooms and some Velux roof lights will overlook the deck. The deck, the steps and the windows will all potentially be at risk from cricket balls coming from the recreation ground.
The height of the extended building will increase by 2.2 metres to 7.6 metres (24.9 feet). The footprint of the building will also be enlarged because the deck and steps will extend out over the existing yard area, creating a covered area for parking and loading underneath.
The Forge is included in the Hampshire County Council list of 'Treasures' which are man-made features of public interest in the county, the destruction of which would represent serious loss to the heritage of the county.
In 2009, English Heritage decided that The Forge did not meet the national criteria for listing, mainly because of past alterations to the building and its fabric. The report commented:
"It is undeniably true that the Forge adds to the picturesque aspect of East Meon, and is a valuable reminder of the importance of the forge or smithy in village life. For this reason the building is of local interest and its protection should lie in the local designations of conservation area, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Park."
On 6 th March 2014, The Forge was listed as an asset of community value, pursuant to section 91(2) of the Localism Act 2011. The reason given was that it "has a special resonance for the local community and furthers the cultural interests of the community". The application, made by the Claimant, stated that it was a valuable reminder of the importance of the forge or smithy in village life, and should be retained for industrial use.
The Forge is in a prominent location in the village, at the corner of the High Street and the road to Frogmore. The Forge is within the East Meon Conservation Area. The boundary of the conservation area detours around The Forge, suggesting that it was specifically included. As the Conservation Officer said in his report:
"It is a worthy candidate for inclusion in the conservation area due to its historical association, location and juxtaposition with other historic buildings, most notably Forge Cottage to the west, which is grade 11 listed."
The East Meon Conservation Area is within the South Downs National Park.
The Forge is situated at an entrance to the village recreation ground: there is a track and farm gate leading to the recreation ground running along the side of the plot. The rear of the building backs onto the recreation ground, with a view obscured to some extent by the sycamore tree. The building is set down at a lower level than the recreation ground so that its eaves are close to the ground level of the recreation ground.
The recreation ground was created as a charitable foundation in 1894 specifically for the purpose of enabling cricket to be played on the ground, and cricket has been played there ever since. The East Meon Cricket Club is a flourishing club which plays there regularly. The cricket square is only 36 metres (just over 39 yards) from The Forge at present, and when the building is extended, the distance will be even less. Cricket balls already fly on to the roof of the building and the surrounding plot at present.
Submissions
The Claimant made three main submissions. First, that the Council erred by failing to determine the planning application in accordance with statutory requirements, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the relevant local policies.
The Defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen (on the application of Leckhampton Green Land Action Group Ltd) v Tewkesbury Borough Council Redrow Homes Ltd and Another (Interested Parties)
...section 2(2)(b) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (see R (East Meon Forge) v East Hampshire District Council [2014] EWHC 3543 (Admin) at paragraphs 108–109). I also note in passing that the Parish Council stated at the Committee meeting on 29 September 2015 that the ......
-
Visao Ltd v The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government
...72 in Shadwell Estates, and by Lang J in East Meon Forge and Cricket Ground Protection Association) v. East Hampshire DC and others [2014] EWHC 3543 (Admin) (at paragraph 108), and that departure from that view would require cogent and compelling 66 In the decision letter the inspector mak......
-
TV Harrison CIC v Leeds City Council
...reasons. Thus, as explained by Lang J in R (East Meon Forge & Cricket Ground Protection Association) v East Hampshire DC & others [2014] EWHC 3543 (Admin) at [108], reasons will normally be required when a planning authority has rejected the views of a statutory consultee. The question of ......
-
Consequences of a Building or other Land Being Included in the List of Assets of Community Value
...795 at [13] and [24] per Lindblom LJ; R (East Meon Forge & Cricket Ground Protection Association) v East Hampshire District Council [2014] EWHC 3543 (Admin), [2015] ACD 45 at [99]–[100] per Lang J. consideration is a matter for the decision-maker, not for the courts. See Tesco Stores Ltd v ......
-
Table of Cases
...4 All ER 533, (2003) 147 SJLB 784 2.18 R (East Meon Forge & Cricket Ground Protection Association) v East Hampshire District Council [2014] EWHC 3543 (Admin), [2015] ACD 45 5.81 R (Edgar) v Bournemouth Borough Council, CO/2663/2013, (2013) 10 May (unreported) 1.24, 3.112, 3.164, 3.184, 4.43......